Crackabiltiy of OpenSSL, GPG, bcrypt and scrypt

[Lisa Kachold]

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:36 AM, gk <gm5729 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I hope I am making an apples to apples comparison.
>
> I'm not talking about Debian's mess up awhile back. Nor am I talking about
> something that was flying around Debian's mailing list for OpenSSL,
> FUSE/ENCFS and AES ciphers.
>
>
> I'm talking overall. Which is the most stable, has the highest probability
> of not be broken in our lifetimes (20 yrs). Mainly I'm trying to center in
> on file management, not email. GPG is good for email, but I find that using
> OpenSSL is actually easier because it is by default installed on *nix boxen,
> AND is VERY VERY easily installed on M$ products compared to the massive
> hoops that have to be done for GPG on the later that even a well versed
> Linux user would be pressed to install right.
>
> scrypt claims it is much more difficult in its derivations than bcrypt
> which is 448 bit Blowfish. Thereby saying it is harder to "crack". However,
> I can not find anything on scrypt that says what type of encryption method
> it uses much less bit value.
>
> So if you had a face off between OpenSSL, GPG and scrypt for file
> encryption. Let me say bcrypt has some funky responses once in a while to
> extra large files, ie > 4gb. Which to use?
>
>
> gk
>
> --
> Remember, it's not that we have something to hide; it's that we have
> nothing to show.
>
> --Keep tunneling.
>

I would have to take the openssl road here!

Of course, maintaining the most recent stable version and upgrading when
security issues are found are required of all code or systems tools
management.

We are not even going to begin to discuss that entropy remains broken.

-- 
Office: (480)307-8707
AT&T: (503)754-4452
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20100621/88dd0bc8/attachment.html>